Karnataka Court August 2001 Judgments
Venkatramana (Deceased) by L.Rs and ors. Vs. Gajanan Trading Company, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-20-2001
Reported in: ILR2002KAR1649; 2002(3)KarLJ127
B.K. Sangalad, J. 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 25-2-1999 passed in Ex. No. 9 of 1997 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yel-lapur, dismissing the execution petition filed under Order 21, Rule 11 of the CPC.2. The petitioners are the L.Rs of the decree-holder. The respondents are the judgment-debtors. Petitioner 1(a)-Power of attorney holder of petitioners 1(b) to 1(k) filed this execution petition under Order 21 of the CPC against the judgment-debtor 2 for recovery of arrears of decretal amount of Rs. 17,782/- passed in O.S. No. 9 of 1984. After registering this case, notice was issued to judgment-debtor 2 who appeared through his Counsel and filed objections contending that the execution petition filed is against law and facts, as such it is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. It is also stated that this execution petition is filed only to harass the judgment-debtors. The decree-holders filed Execution Petition No. 6 of 1996. No recovery ...
Tag this Judgment!John Sunder Rajan Vs. Hajee Timbers and Industries, Mangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-20-2001
Reported in: ILR2002KAR1448; 2002(3)KarLJ600
ORDERG. Patribasavan Goud, J. 1. In a proceeding instituted on a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C., the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused due to absence of the complainant. As against that order of acquittal, an appeal lies under Section 378(4) of the Cr. P.C. As against such an order against which an appeal lies, no revision under Section 397 of the Cr. P.C. would be entertained in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 401 of the Cr. P.C. Still, by the impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge entertained the revision petition and allowed it. The impugned order, therefore, is clearly the one passed without jurisdiction.2. This petition is allowed and the said order of the learned Sessions Judge is set aside, with liberty to the respondent-complainant to question the original order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate, by way of appeal under Section 378(4) of the Cr. P.C....
Tag this Judgment!Sujay Enterprises, Bangalore Vs. Airport Authority of India, Bangalore ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-20-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR4634; 2001(5)KarLJ478
1. The controversy involved herein pertains to awarding of the contract/licence for exclusive right of advertisement at Bangalore Airport.2. The moot question is as to whether the respondent-Airport Authority of India (in short the 'Authority') had cogent reasons for annulling the tender process started by it under its tender notice dated 25-1-2000 (Annexure-A) for granting exclusive right of advertisement at Bangalore Airport and re-tender the same. Communications to the said effect were made to the rival tenderers under letter dated 9-5-2000 (Annexure-K).3. The reasons for taking the above decision are contained in the minutes of the 48th Meeting of the Commercial Advisory Board (in short the 'Board'), which is the Competent Authority for the purpose. These minutes have been filed as Annexure-R3. These read thus.-'The proposal for decision on the tenders for the aforesaid contract as also formulation of policy guidelines regarding treatment of outstanding dues for the purpose of 'No ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahesh Vs. the Commissioner of Public Instruction, Bangalore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-20-2001
Reported in: ILR2002KAR1997; 2001(6)KarLJ189
ORDER1. The petitioner in this writ petition has sought for a direction to respondent 2 to consider his case for appointment to any post including the clerical post on compassionate ground.2. Respondent 2 is a private educational institution. The father of the petitioner had served as an attender in the said institution and while in service he died after having put in 27 years of service. Thereafter, the petitioner being a minor at that time made an application for appointment on compassionate grounds. On the said application the Management is said to have issued an endorsement to the petitioner stating that since the petitioner is a minor he cannot be appointed to any post and further stated that as and when he attains majority, his case would be considered for appointment.As averred in the writ petition the petitioner has attained majority on 1-5-1996. Thereafter, he filed an application seeking for appointment in the year 1999 i.e., almost about four years after he attained majority...
Tag this Judgment!T. Umesh Malli and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-20-2001
Reported in: ILR2002KAR1201; 2001(6)KarLJ292
ORDERThe Court 1. Petitioners are facing prosecution before the learned Magistrate at C.C. No. 287 of 1992 for the offences under Sections 326 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The alleged incident took place in the year 1990 as the crime number would indicate, namely Crime No. 251 of 1990. 10 years after the incident and 8 years after the charge-sheet came to be filed, petitioners availed of the benefit of the decision of the Supreme Court in Raj Deo Sharma v State of Bihar, by an order of the learned Magistrate dated 20-5-2000. Thereafter, but before the case could be terminated, the prosecution came up with a request to summon certain witnesses under Section 311 of the Cr. P.C. The learned Magistrate has declined the said request on two grounds, one of which is that the request of the prosecution for invoking Section 311 of the Cr. P.C. is a belated one.When the above said order of declining to invoke Section 311 of the Cr. P.C. was taken up in revision before the learned Ses...
Tag this Judgment!H.N. Venaktesh and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-20-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ328
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J. 1. The three petitioners before the Court are Government servants belonging to the Forest Department. On 27-9-1999 they had registered an offence against two persons for offences under the Karnataka Forest Act on the ground that they had encroached on forest land. They were arrested on the evening of that day and produced before the trial Court on 28-9-1999. The record indicates that the accused in the forest case were released on bail by the Court on the same day. Five days later i.e.. on2-10-1999, the accused in the earlier case lodged a complaint with the police authorities of the Shanivara Santhe police station alleging offences punishable under Sections 447, 457, 323 read with Section 34, I. P. C. and Section 3(i)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The police registered an offence pursuant to this complaint and the present petition seeks quashing of that complaint. The short ground urged is that the complaint it...
Tag this Judgment!D.M. Nagesh and ors. Vs. the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-18-2001
Reported in: ILR2002KAR356; 2002(3)KarLJ209
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.1. The petitioners claimed that they were appointed as Extra Departmental Agents (Packers) by the Post and Telegraph Department. The petitioners 1 to 3 claimed that they were so appointed on 29-11-1997 and 22-1-1997 on provisional appointment basis pending regular recruitment making it clear that such provisional appointment will not give rise to any claim of regular appointment.2. The petitioners claimed that before their provisional appointment they had also worked as substitutes from time to time, from 1992, 1993 and 1991 respectively. The distinction between the substitute appointments and provisional appointments is well-recognised.3. When an Extra Departmental Agent appointed by the department proceed on leave, such agent is permitted to make temporary arrangement by appointing any one of his choice as a substitute until he returns from leave. The substitute appointment is sporadic, depending on the period during which the regularly appointed employee is o...
Tag this Judgment!Loharu Steel Industries Ltd. Vs. D.C.M. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-18-2001
Reported in: [2001]107CompCas353(Kar); ILR2001KAR4673
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. The appellant in this appeal was the respondent before the Company Judge in Company Petition No. 74 of 1998. In this appeal, he has called in question the correctness of the order dated 1-12-2000, made in the said company petition directing winding up of the appellant-company under the provisions of the Companies Act.2. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge was stayed by this Court on 15-6-2001, for a period of eight weeks. It is not disputed by Sri Thomoas V. Peter appearing for the official liquidator that he has not yet taken possession of the appellant-company,3. Sri Basavaprabhu S. Patil, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri Nanjundaswamy, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the dispute between the appellant-company and the first respondent has been amicably settled and in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the appellant has today handed over a DD for a sum of Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Champabai and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka, by Its Secretary, Home Depa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-18-2001
Reported in: ILR2004KAR3052
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. Originally this Writ Petition was filed by the first petitioner, who is the mother of late Kamalakar, seeking a direction to the first respondent State of Karnataka to award compensation of rupees five lakhs towards the death of her son while in police lock-up. Subsequently, the 2nd petitioner, who is the younger brother of the deceased has been impleaded.2. It is alleged that the deceased Kamalakar dies in the Station Bazaar Police Station at Gulbarga while in lock-up on 19-6-1992 at the behest of one B.N. Palil. It is stated that the said B.N. Patil had promised to secure a job to the deceased and received Rs. 25,000/-but failed to secure the job. When Kamalakar demanded return of money, B.N. Patil, with a view to take revenge, filed a false complaint, on the basis of which a false case was registered against the deceased. In that connection, Kamalakar was shifted from one station to another and finally he was illegally detained in Bazaar Police Station fro...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Gowramma Vs. Nanjappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-17-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR4853; 2002(6)KarLJ70
1. The appellant herein was the fifth defendant in Original Suit No. 5 of 1991 on the file of the Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District. First respondent was the plaintiff. Respondents 2 to 9 were respectively defendants 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 in the suit. For convenience, parties will be referred to by their ranks in the suit.2. The first respondent (plaintiff) filed the said suit for partition and separate possession of his share in the joint family properties consisting of 19 items of lands described in Schedule A and three items of houses described in Schedule B to the plaint. The said suit was filed against his mother (first defendant), three brothers (defendants 2 to 4) and sister (fifth defendant). Subsequently, defendants 6 to 9 were impleaded on the ground that they were claiming rights over the suit schedule properties.3. The suit was contested by the defendants. The fifth defendant in her written statement submitted that she was entitled to a one-sixth share in the suit s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »